GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. THANK
YOU FOR ATTENDING AND TUNING IN
TO THE COMMITTEE ON
COMMUNICATIONS AND CONVEYANCE
BILL HEARING. MY NAME IS TASHA
BOERNER, AND I SERVE AS THE
CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE. JOINING
ME ON THE DAIS TODAY ARE
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS, NGUYEN AND
ASSEMBLY MEMBER DAVIES. AND, WE
ARE GOING TO START AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE. SO IF THE SERGEANT
CAN PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT
MEMBERS, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL,
AND WE'RE ALSO JOINED BY EMILIO
PEREZ, THE CHIEF CONSULTANT OF
THE COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE,
AND ELIZABETH DELGADO OF THE
COMMITTEE SECRETARY. JOINING US
FOR THE HEARING IS DANIEL BALIN,
CONSULTANT WITH THE REPUBLICAN
CAUCUS POLICY UNIT. TODAY'S
ITEMS, CITY'S AGENDA HAS SIX
ITEMS. ITEM THREE, AB 2780.
MCKENNA HAS BEEN PULLED BY THE
AUTHOR FROM TODAY'S AGENDA, AND
THERE ARE THREE ITEMS ON THE
PROPOSED CONSENT CALENDAR. WE
HAVE AB FOUR, SORRY. ITEM FOUR,
AB 2369. PATTERSON AB 2708
PATTERSON AND ITEM SIX AB 2905
LO. WE CAN'T DO THAT NOW BECAUSE
WE'RE A SUBCOMMITTEE SO WE CAN
ENTERTAIN A MOTION WHEN WE HAVE
QUORUM, BUT BEFORE WE BEGIN OUR
BILL PRESENTATIONS, I'D LIKE TO
TAKE CARE OF SOME LOGISTICAL
HOUSEKEEPING. IF ANY MEMBER OF
THE PUBLIC IN THE ROOM WOULD
LIKE TO TESTIFY ON A BILL DURING
THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, I'LL
INVITE YOU TO APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE AT THE APPROPRIATE
TIME. I'D ASK THE PUBLIC, NOT
TOUCH THE MICROPHONE, AND YOU
CAN EXIT THE HEARING ROOM ONCE
YOU'RE DONE TESTIFYING OR RETURN
TO YOUR SEAT, NOW LET'S COVER
THE GROUND RULES. RULES FOR
APPROPRIATE CONTACT. THE
ASSEMBLY HAS EXPERIENCED A
NUMBER OF DISRUPTIONS TO
COMMITTEE AND FLOOR PROCEEDINGS
IN THE PAST FEW YEARS. CONDUCT
THAT DISRUPTS, DISTURBS,
OTHERWISE IMPEDES. THE ORDERLY
CONDUCT OF THE HEARING IS
PROHIBITED. SUCH CONDUCT MAY
INCLUDE TALKING OR MAKING LOUD
NOISES FROM THE AUDIENCE,
UTTERING LOUD, THREATENING OR
ABUSIVE LANGUAGE, SPEAKING
LONGER THAN THE TIME ALLOTTED,
EXTENDED DISCUSSIONS OF MATTERS
NOT RELATED TO THE SUBJECT OF
THE HEARING OR BILL, AND ANY
OTHER DISRUPTIVE ACTS TO ADDRESS
TO ADDRESS ANY DISRUPTIVE
CONDUCT. I WILL TAKE THE
FOLLOWING STEPS. IF AN
INDIVIDUAL DISRUPTS OUR HEARING
PROCESS, I WILL DIRECT THEM TO
STOP AND WARN THEM THAT
CONTINUED DISRUPTIONS MAY RESULT
IN REMOVAL FROM THE CAPITOL
BUILDING. I WILL ALSO DOCUMENT
ON RECORD THE INDIVIDUAL
INVOLVED IN THE NATURE OF THE
DISRUPTIVE CONDUCT. I MAY ALSO
TEMPORARILY RECESS THE HEARING
IF THE CONDUCT DOES NOT STOP, I
WILL REQUEST ASSISTANCE FROM THE
SERGEANTS IN ESCORTING THE
INDIVIDUAL FROM THE CAPITOL
BUILDING. OKAY, WE'RE WAITING
FOR SOME MORE MEMBERS SO WE CAN
HAVE QUORUM, BUT WE COULD GO
AHEAD AND START WITH ITEM NUMBER
SEVEN. THAT'S A TWO. THAT'S ITEM
NUMBER TWO, AB 2765. GAIL
PELLERIN. AND I JUST WANT TO
NOTICE THAT MY VICE CHAIR IS
HERE. WE HAVE QUORUM. WE'RE
GOING TO GO BACK, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER REAL QUICK TO ESTABLISH
QUORUM. SO THE COMMITTEE
SECRETARY WILL NOW TAKE
ATTENDANCE. MADAM SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. BURNER
HERE. BURNER PRESENT. WHICH ONE
DO I DO? THERE WE GO. BURNER.
BURNER PRESENT. PRESENT. THANK
YOU. PATTERSON. PATTERSON.
PRESENT. BONNIE TO PRESENT.
BONNIE TO PRESENT. DAVID DAVIES.
PRESENT. GARCIA HOLDEN. HOLDEN.
PRESENT. HOOVER MAIENSCHEIN.
NGUYEN. NGUYEN PRESENT. THREE OF
US. RODRIGUEZ OKAY. WE HAVE A
QUORUM, SO WE'RE HEARING AB 2765
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER PELLERIN
RELATED TO TELECOMMUNICATION
SERVICES. BACKUP. ELECTRICITY
VERIFICATION. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
PELLERIN, YOU MAY OPEN. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. CHAIR
AND MEMBERS, I WILL START BY
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS, WHICH CHANGED THE
BILL TO REQUIRE A DETAILED
REPORT FROM THE CPUC TO THE
LEGISLATURE REGARDING COMPLIANCE
WITH THE RESILIENCY PLAN
SUBMITTED. AND I WANT TO THANK
YOUR STAFF FOR TAKING THE TIME
TO HELP US OUT WITH THAT, AND IN
2021, THE LEGISLATURE PASSED A
REQUIREMENT FOR THE CPUC TO
REQUIRE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
SERVICE PROVIDERS TO TAKE ACTION
TO ENSURE SERVICES BE MAINTAINED
IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY.
UNFORTUNATELY, IN 2022, THE MILL
FIRE SWEPT ACROSS SISKIYOU
COUNTY, DESTROYING 118
STRUCTURES AND EVENTUALLY
LEADING TO THE DEATH OF TWO
INDIVIDUALS. THIS FIRE
SUBSEQUENTLY RESULTED IN THE
LOSS OF COMMUNICATION LINES,
EQUIPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BELONGING TO A
TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROVIDER IN
THE AREA. THE ABILITY TO
COMMUNICATE IN THE EVENT OF AN
EMERGENCY CAN BE THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN LIFE AND DEATH. AB 2765,
AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED, WILL
REQUIRE THAT THE CPUC REPORT TO
THE LEGISLATURE A DESCRIPTION OF
THE INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED TO
VERIFY THAT THE PROVIDERS ARE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE RESILIENCY
PLAN SUBMITTED. ADDITIONALLY,
THIS REPORT WILL INCLUDE A LIST
OF VIOLATIONS FOUND AS WELL AS
REMEDIATING ATTEMPTS MADE TO FIX
THOSE VIOLATIONS. BY ENABLING
THESE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, WE
CAN HOLD ACCOUNTABLE THOSE
PROVIDERS WHO ARE NOT DOING
THEIR PART TO ENSURE ALL
CALIFORNIA CITIZENS CAN USE
PHONES IN CASE OF AN EMERGENCY.
WITH ME TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT
TODAY IS IGNACIO HERNANDEZ, WHO
IS REPRESENTING THE UTILITY
REFORM NETWORK. MR. HERNANDEZ,
YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES. GREAT.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS.
IGNACIO HERNANDEZ, ON BEHALF OF
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK,
RETURN, IS ONE OF THE
CO-SPONSORS OF THE BILL AND ALSO
ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNICATION
WORKERS OF AMERICA, DISTRICT
NINE, WHICH COVERS CALIFORNIA,
NEVADA AND HAWAII. ANOTHER
CO-SPONSOR, I WANT TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE FOR THE WORK ON THIS
BILL, AND THE AMENDMENTS, A
COUPLE OF THINGS. AS THE AUTHOR
MENTIONED, THERE WAS A, YOU
KNOW, LONG TERME BATTLE, BOTH IN
THE COMMISSION AND AT THE
LEGISLATURE TO REQUIRE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROVIDERS, TO
HAVE BACKUP BATTERY POWER FOR
THEIR FACILITIES AND FOR CERTAIN
INFRASTRUCTURE, BECAUSE
OTHERWISE, DURING CERTAIN
WEATHER EVENTS, WILDFIRES, AND
OTHER SITUATIONS,
TELECOMMUNICATIONS WOULD BE SHUT
OFF IF THE, IF THE TELECOM
PROVIDERS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO
MAINTAIN POWER FOR AT LEAST SOME
PERIOD OF TIME. SO THE
COMMISSION DID LAND ON A 72 HOUR
RULE, THERE WERE SOME THINGS
THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THAT,
DESPITE SOME OF THE BEST EFFORTS
OF TERN AND OTHERS, SO SOME OF
THE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS THAT
WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SEEN WERE
NOT INCLUDED, AND AS WE
INITIALLY INTRODUCED THIS BILL,
IT WAS THERE WAS NO PUBLIC
INFORMATION THAT THE COMMISSION
WAS ACTUALLY DOING ANY WORK TO
ENSURE THAT THERE WAS COMPLIANCE
WITH THE RESILIENCY PLANS, WHICH
MEANS WE WOULD ONLY FIND OUT
AFTERWARDS, IF A PROVIDER WAS
NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES OR DOING
THE PROPER WORK IN WORKING ON
THIS BILL AND THROUGH THE WORK
OF THE COMMITTEE, WE WERE ABLE
TO IDENTIFY AND FIND OUT THAT
THERE WERE, IN FACT, SOME, SOME
EVALUATIONS BEING DONE AND SOME
VISITS BEING DONE BY THE CPUC.
ALTHOUGH THAT INFORMATION IS NOT
MADE PUBLIC AND FOLKS ARE NOT
AWARE WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO
THAT. SO WHAT THIS BILL WILL DO
IS FILL A GAP AND ENSURE THAT
THE LEGISLATURE IS AWARE THAT
THESE, THAT THESE CHECKS ARE
BEING MADE IN TO BEFORE AN EVENT
HAPPENS, AND ALSO IDENTIFY WHERE
THERE HAVE BEEN VIOLATIONS AND
WHAT WORK HAS BEEN DONE TO
REMEDIATE ANY PROBLEMS SO THAT
YOUR CONSTITUENT CAN HAVE
CONFIDENCE THAT IF THERE'S AN
ISSUE THAT THE POWER WILL REMAIN
AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS WILL
REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR A MINIMUM
OF 72 HOURS. SO FOR THOSE
REASONS, WE'RE VERY HAPPY TO
SPONSOR AND CO-SPONSOR THIS BILL
AND ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT. WE
HAVE A QUORUM MOTION BY DAVIES.
SECOND BY NGUYEN. OKAY. NEXT
WE'LL MOVE TO ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES AND SUPPORT. YOU MAY
APPROACH THE MIC WITH NAME,
AFFILIATION AND POSITION ONLY.
PLEASE NOPE. WE'RE GOOD. ANY
OPPOSITION? OKAY, SO, DO YOU
WANT TO DO YOU WANT TO GO FROM
THE MIC OR DO YOU WANT TO COME
UP TO THE DESK? OKAY, JUST A
QUICK. GOOD AFTERNOON. AMANDA
GUADERRAMA WITH CAL BROADBAND.
WE HAVE AN OPPOSED POSITION, BUT
ARE CURRENTLY REVIEWING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. WE DO
BELIEVE JUST IN OUR LIMITED
REVIEW, THAT IT'S GOING IN THE
RIGHT DIRECTION. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, AUDRA HARTMAN, ON
BEHALF OF CAL. COM I JUST WANT
TO ECHO THE COMMENTS THAT CAL
BROADBAND JUST, GAVE. SO THANK
YOU. OKAY THANK YOU TO ALL THE
WITNESSES. I'M NOW TAKE THE
FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION. ANY
QUESTIONS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS?
SEEING NONE. ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
PAULIN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU. FIRST OF ALL,
THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
PELLERIN, FOR WORKING WITH ME
AND MY STAFF TO COME UP WITH AN
AGREEMENT ON AMENDMENTS AND
WHICH YOU'VE AGREED TO ACCEPT.
I'M PLEASED THAT WE COULD COME
TO THIS AGREEMENT ON MOVING THIS
BILL FORWARD. THAT WORKS FOR THE
STATE AND WORKS FOR YOUR
DISTRICT. AND AS YOUR WITNESS
POINTED OUT, WORKS FOR OUR
CONSTITUENTS, AND WITH THAT, I,
WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE A
SECOND, AND THE FOR MEMBERS IS A
MOTION. A SECOND THE MOTION IS
AB 2765 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
PELLERIN IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED
AND RE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE
ON APPROPRIATIONS. THE
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
BERNER AYE. BERNER AYE.
PATTERSON A. PATTERSON AYE.
BONTA AYE. BONTA AYE. DAVIES.
DAVIES. AYE. GARCIA HOLDEN.
HOLDEN. AYE. HOOVER MAIENSCHEIN.
NGUYEN NGUYEN. AYE. THREE OF US.
RODRIGUEZ. RODRIGUEZ. AYE. THE
BILL IS OUT. WE'LL LEAVE IT OPEN
FOR, ADDITIONAL MEMBERS TO ADD
ON. THANK YOU SO MUCH. LET'S GO
BACK TO. THERE WE GO, FILE ITEM
ONE, AB 2239, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BONTA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
PRESENT. GO BACK, LOOK AT THE
CONSENT CALENDAR AS WELL. YEAH,
WE CAN DO IT WHENEVER HE'S HERE.
SO TODAY WE'RE HEARING AB 2239
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER BONTA RELATED
TO DIGITAL DISCRIMINATION OF
ACCESS. WHEN YOU'RE READY WITH
YOUR WITNESSES, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BONTA, YOU MAY OPEN. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, I WANT TO START BY
THANKING THE CHAIR AND THE
COMMITTEE FOR WORKING WITH MY
OFFICE AND, VERY SPECIALLY
THANK, THE STAFF FOR PUTTING
TOGETHER SUCH A THOUGHTFUL
ANALYSIS TO BRING FORWARD TO THE
COMMITTEE FOR CONSIDERATION.
THÀNH. I DO ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS AND APPRECIATE THE
THOUGHTFUL, CONTRIBUTIONS IN
THAT REGARD. AB 2239 ADDRESSES A
CRITICAL ISSUE IN OUR DIGITAL
AGE, ENSURING EQUITABLE ACCESS
TO BROADBAND INTERNET SERVICES
FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS. AS YOU
WILL HEAR FROM MY WITNESSES,
CALIFORNIANS THAT LIVE IN AREAS
WITH PREDOMINANTLY LOW INCOME
RESIDENTS AND PEOPLE OF COLOR
ARE DISPROPORTIONATELY Kò
DISCONNECTED IN LIGHT OF THE
INCREASING RELIANCE ON DIGITAL
TECHNOLOGIES FOR EDUCATION,
WORK, HEALTH CARE AND
COMMUNICATION, IT IS IMPERATIVE
THAT WE PREVENT DIGITAL
DISCRIMINATION AND PROMOTE
FAIRNESS IN ACCESS TO ESSENTIAL
SERVICES FIRST. AB 2239 ADOPTS
THE FCC'S DEFINITION OF DIGITAL
DISCRIMINATION, WHICH IS A CLEAR
DEFINITION FOR DIGITAL
DISCRIMINATION OF ACCESS. THIS
DEFINITION PROVIDES A FRAMEWORK
FOR IDENTIFYING AND ADDRESSING
DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES IN
BROADBAND INTERNET PROVISION. IN
ADDITION, AB 2239 EXPRESSLY
PROHIBITS INTERNET SERVICE
PROVIDERS FROM ENGAGING IN
DIGITAL DISCRIMINATION OF
ACCESS, WHICH IS DEFINED AS
POLICIES OR PRACTICES THAT
DISPARATELY OR DIFFERENTIALLY
IMPACT CONSUMERS ACCESS BASED ON
FACTORS SUCH AS INCOME LEVEL,
RACE, ETHNICITY, RELIGION, OR
NATIONAL ORIGIN. HERE TO TESTIFY
IS PATRICK MESSEC, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF OAKLAND UNDIVIDED.
AND SHAYNA ENGLAND, THE DIRECTOR
OF THE DIGITAL EQUITY INITIATIVE
AT THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY
FOUNDATION. THANK YOU. YOU EACH
HAVE TWO MINUTES. OH, SORRY. YOU
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
BONTA. CHAIR. BERNER. VICE
CHAIR. PATTERSON AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. I'M PATRICK
MESSICK, DIRECTOR OF OAKLAND
UNDIVIDED AND EQUITY BASED
COLLECTIVE IMPACT INITIATIVE
THAT UNITES THE CITY SCHOOL
DISTRICT AND TRUSTED CBOS IN THE
PURSUIT OF DIGITAL EQUITY FOR
OAKLAND'S 37,000 DISCONNECTED
HOUSEHOLDS. AS MY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER SHARED, THE FACTS OF THE
DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA ARE
STARK. RACE AND INCOME ARE THE
BEST PREDICTORS OF WHETHER YOU
HAVE ACCESS TO THE INTERNET IN
YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, HOW RELIABLE
IT IS, AND WHAT YOU PAY FOR IT.
WITH LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES AND
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR
DISPROPORTIONATELY ON THE WRONG
SIDE OF ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS,
HERE'S WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN
OAKLAND WIDELY DISPARATE QUALITY
OF SERVICE IN OUR LOWEST INCOME
COMMUNITIES. AFTER MONTHS OF
INSPECTING INTERNAL WIRING AND
CONDUCTING INTERVIEWS WITH
NETWORK EXPERTS AND COMMUNITY
MEMBERS, A CLEAR THEME EMERGED
POOR COMMUNITIES DO NOT GET THE
RELIABLE BROADBAND CONNECTIONS
ADVERTISED TO THEM, REGARDLESS
OF HOW MUCH THEY PAY. Þ YOU
PARTNERED WITH PUBLIC TO RUN
NEARLY HALF A MILLION SPEED
TESTS AT OVER 15,000 LOCATIONS
ACROSS OAKLAND, AND WE FOUND
THAT OVER 75% OF INTERNET
CONNECTIONS WE TESTED NEVER
REACHED THE SPEED THRESHOLD TO
BE CONSIDERED SERVED. MOST
ALARMINGLY, CONNECTIONS IN OUR
HIGHEST INCOME COMMUNITY WITH
THE LARGEST PROPORTION OF WHITE
RESIDENTS WERE NEARLY TEN TIMES
FASTER THAN IN OUR POOREST, WITH
THE CITY'S LARGEST POPULATION OF
PEOPLE OF COLOR, A PATTERN
MIRRORING REDLINING MAPS FROM
1937. THE FRESNO DIGITAL
INCLUSION ALLIANCE, ONE OF OUR
PARTNERS AT THE CALIFORNIA
ALLIANCE FOR DIGITAL EQUITY, A
CROSS-SECTOR COLLABORATIVE OF 30
PLUS ANCHOR INSTITUTIONS AND
COMMUNITY BASED ORGS WORKING TO
IMPROVE DIGITAL EQUITY
THROUGHOUT FRESNO COUNTY AND
CENTRAL VALLEY, DOCUMENTED A
SIMILAR PATTERN, UTILIZING K TO
12 STUDENT LAPTOPS IN FRESNO
UNIFIED AND CENTRAL UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICTS. THEY HAVE OVER
15 MILLION SPEED TESTS,
MEASUREMENTS THAT ECHOED THE
SAME FINDINGS IN OAKLAND. AREAS
OF HISTORIC UNDERINVESTMENT
CONTINUE TO SHOW UP AS THE MOST
POORLY SERVED BROADBAND
CONSUMERS. YOU MIGHT ASSUME THAT
THESE WEALTHY COMMUNITIES HAVE
HIGHER QUALITY CONNECTIONS
BECAUSE THEY PAY MORE FOR
INTERNET, BUT THE OPPOSITE IS
TRUE POOR COMMUNITIES PAY MORE
FOR WORSE. INTERNET A FACT THAT
MISS BRANDI, A SINGLE MOTHER
LIVING IN PUBLIC HOUSING IN WEST
OAKLAND PAYING $150 A MONTH TO
KEEP HER TWO CHILDREN ONLINE FOR
SCHOOLWORK, CAN ATTEST TO. OU IS
PROUD TO SPONSOR AB 2239 BECAUSE
IF WE ARE GOING TO ERADICATE THE
DIGITAL DIVIDE AND ENSURE THAT
ALL OF OUR COMMUNITIES CAN
ACCESS THE NECESSITY AND
OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE ONLY
WITH FAST, RELIABLE AND
AFFORDABLE BROADBAND INTERNET,
WE MUST TACKLE DIGITAL
DISCRIMINATION. WHETHER IT IS
INTENTIONAL OR NOT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. I'M SHAYNA ENGLAND,
DIRECTOR OF THE DIGITAL EQUITY
INITIATIVE AT THE CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY FOUNDATION. WE
CO-CONVENED DIGITAL EQUITY LOS
ANGELES AND THE CALIFORNIA LIONS
FOR DIGITAL EQUITY. I'M HERE ON
BEHALF OF BOTH OF THESE
COALITIONS AS THE LIST OF AB
2239 CHAMPIONS, REPRESENTING ON
THE LETTER OF SUPPORT WE
SUBMITTED FOR THIS COMMITTEE'S
CONSIDERATION AND MANY OF WHOM
ARE ARRAYED BEHIND US IN LA, WE
HAVE DOCUMENTED THAT THE
ADVERTISED COST OF INTERNET
SERVICE IS SYSTEMATICALLY HIGHER
IN NEIGHBORHOODS WITH HIGHER
POVERTY RATES. FOR EXAMPLE, IN A
MAJORITY WHITE MARINA DEL REY
NEIGHBORHOOD WITH NEAR
NONEXISTENT POVERTY, NEARLY
UNIVERSAL CONNECTIVITY, K¾T
ADVERTISED PRICES RANGE FROM 40
TO $60 PER MONTH FROM THE
MONOPOLY PROVIDER WITH ABOUT 15
MINUTES AWAY IN UNIVERSITY PARK,
WHERE 65% OF HOUSEHOLDS LIVE IN
POVERTY, THE MAJORITY OF
RESIDENTS ARE PEOPLE OF COLOR
AND FOUR OUT OF TEN PEOPLE ARE
DISCONNECTED. THE ADVERTISED
PRICES FOR THE EXACT SAME
SERVICE ARE 10 TO $20 PER MONTH,
AND I WILL POINT THAT THE VISUAL
AID. THESE ARE SCREENSHOTS TAKEN
LAST WEEK. THIS IS NEW
INFORMATION. INDEPENDENT
RESEARCH HAS VERIFIED OUR
FINDINGS AT SCALE. A TEAM OF AT
UC SANTA BARBARA STUDIED MORE
THAN 35,000 RESIDENTIAL
ADDRESSES IN THE CITY OF LOS
ANGELES AND CONCLUDED THAT,
QUOTE, WEALTHIER AREAS RECEIVE
MORE BANDWIDTH FOR LESS MONEY.
THIS ISN'T A PHENOMENON LIMITED
TO LA. LAST MONTH, OUR PARTNERS
AT CHINESE FOR AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION IN SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLISHED A REPORT ON SERVICE IN
CHINATOWN. COMPARED TO NEARBY
SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITIES, ONE
CASE STUDY FROM CA'S REPORT, A
PLAN AVAILABLE AT A NORTH BEACH
ADDRESS, OFFERS MAXIMUM SPEEDS
THAT ARE SIX TIMES HIGHER THAN
THE MAXIMUM SPEEDS AVAILABLE AT
A CHINATOWN ADDRESS FOR THE SAME
COST. THE TWO ADDRESSES ARE FIVE
BLOCKS APART. WE WANT TO BE
CLEAR, AS SPONSORS AND
SUPPORTERS OF AB 2239, WE'RE NOT
MAKING ANY ASSUMPTIONS OR
ACCUSATIONS ABOUT THE INTENT OR
WHAT'S IN THE HEARTS OF PEOPLE
MAKING DECISIONS OF THE BIG
ISPS. INSTEAD, WE'RE DOCUMENTING
THE LIVED EXPERIENCE OF THE
PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITIES WHO
REMAIN DISPROPORTIONATELY
DISCONNECTED, AND WE'RE
ELEVATING THE PATTERNS IN ISP
POLICIES AND PRACTICES THAT
REGARDLESS OF INTENT, ARE
EXACERBATING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE.
ÁP TIÂU, IF YOU CAN WRAP UP.
YEAH, I'LL WRAP UP. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR YOUR SUPPORT. AND
WE'RE ABLE TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, TO THE
PROPONENTS, WE ALSO HAVE TWO
PRIMARY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
WHO MAY APPROACH THE DESK. WE
HAVE AMANDA VALDERRAMA FROM
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OF CAL
BROADBAND. DID I GET YOUR NAME
RIGHT? YEAH. OKAY AND THEN PAM
LEWIS FROM CAL COMM. AND YOU'LL
EACH HAVE TWO MINUTES.
OKAY GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM
CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
AMANDA VALDERRAMA WITH CAL
BROADBAND. WHILE WE APPRECIATE
THE GOAL OF AB 2239, WE DISAGREE
WITH THE METHOD AND MUST OPPOSE
THE BILL. IT IS IMPORTANT TO
NOTE THAT CALIFORNIA HAS ENACTED
EXTENSIVE ANTI DISCRIMINATION
LAWS. FOR EXAMPLE, UNDER THE
UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, ALL
BUSINESSES, INCLUDING INTERNET
SERVICE PROVIDERS, ARE
PROHIBITED FROM DISCRIMINATING
AGAINST PROTECTED CLASSES UNDER
THE DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND
VIDEO COMPETITION ACT. VIDEO
SERVICE PROVIDERS ARE PROHIBITED
FROM DISCRIMINATING AGAINST OR
DENYING ACCESS TO SERVICE TO ANY
GROUP OF POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL
SUBSCRIBERS BECAUSE OF THE
INCOME OF THE RESIDENTS IN THE
LOCAL AREA IN WHICH THE GROUP
RESIDES. WITHIN THE 18 YEARS
SINCE DEVCO WAS PASSED, THERE
HAS NOT BEEN A SINGLE
ENFORCEMENT ACTION RELATED TO A
VIOLATION OF THE
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION STANDARD.
PUTTING ASIDE THE ARGUMENTS THAT
THE FCC RULES ALREADY UNDER
REVIEW BY THE FEDERAL COURT,
THAT ENFORCEMENT WILL BEGIN IN
SEPTEMBER, THAT THERE IS A
PREEMPTION QUESTION SINCE
CONGRESS AND THE FCC WERE CLEAR
AND HAVEN'T ACTED IN THIS AREA,
AND THAT THE FCC HAS PUBLISHED A
LIST OF WAYS THAT STATES CAN
ASSIST IN ENSURING THAT THERE IS
NO DISCRIMINATORY DIGITAL
DISCRIMINATION THAT ARE NOT
REFLECTED IN THE BILL. I WILL
FOCUS MY TESTIMONY ON WHAT IS IN
THE BILL. AB 2239 PLACES A
STANDARD OF DISPARATE IMPACT
WITH REGARDS TO LIABILITY FOR A
VIOLATION OF DIGITAL
DISCRIMINATION. THIS MEANS THAT
ISPS CAN BE HELD LIABLE EVEN IF
THEY ARE NOT INTENTIONALLY
WITHHOLDING QUALITY INTERNET
FROM A PROTECTED GROUP. MANY, IF
NOT MOST, LONG STANDING UNIFORM
BUSINESS PRACTICES OR DECISIONS
BASED ON MULTIPLE FACTORS COULD
BE SEEN TO HAVE DIFFERENTIAL
IMPACTS ON CONSUMERS. ALSO, THIS
BILL IS SILENT REGARDING THE
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS, WHICH
SHOULD INCLUDE THE INCLUSIVE
COMMUNITY SUPREME COURT
PRECEDENT THAT REQUIRES CERTAIN
HURDLES FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO
DEMONSTRATE THAT DISPARATE
IMPACT IS TIED TO A SPECIFIC
POLICY OR PRACTICE, AND
LIABILITY WOULD ONLY ATTACH IF
ARTIFICIAL, ARBITRARY, OR
UNNECESSARY BARRIERS ARE
INCLUDED. CURRENTLY, CALIFORNIA
HAS THE BENEFIT OF BEING THE
SEAT OF INVESTMENT FOR THE
TECHNOLOGY SECTOR, INCLUDING
BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE
POLICIES SUCH AS DISPARATE
IMPACT STANDARDS WILL HAVE A
CHILLING EFFECT REGARDING GROWTH
UPGRADES AND INNOVATION IN
ENSURING UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO
BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE IS AN
IMPORTANT ISSUE TO EVERYONE,
WHICH IS WHY OUR MEMBERS PRIDE
THEMSELVES IN DEPLOYING
UBIQUITOUS SERVICE THROUGHOUT
THEIR TERRITORIES. YOU CAN WRAP
UP. YES THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO
PASS IT ON TO PAM. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS PAM LOOMIS,
AND I'M TESTIFYING IN OPPOSITION
TO AB 2239 TODAY ON BEHALF OF
THE SMALL RURAL COMPANIES THAT
ARE MEMBERS OF THE CALIFORNIA
COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION OR
CAL COMM FOR SHORT, THESE SMALL
COMPANIES HAVE BEEN SERVING SOME
OF THE MOST REMOTE AND RUGGED
AREAS OF THE STATE FOR OVER 100
YEARS. THEY BUILD AND OPERATE
BROADBAND CAPABLE NETWORKS IN
SPARSELY POPULATED HISTORIC
COMMUNITIES, AND BECAUSE THEIR
CUSTOMERS WANT ACCESS TO THE
INTERNET, THEY HAVE CREATED
AFFILIATES TO PROVIDE BROADBAND
SERVICE. OFTEN AT AN ECONOMIC
LOSS, THESE COMPANIES HAVE BEEN
AT THE FOREFRONT OF CLOSING THE
DIGITAL DIVIDE IN RURAL
CALIFORNIA IN THEIR COMMUNITIES.
AND THIS IS THANKS IN LARGE PART
TO PUBLIC FUNDING FROM BOTH THE
FEDERAL AND STATE HIGH COST
SUBSIDY PROGRAMS. WE ARE A
TESTAMENT TO THE BENEFITS OF
ADDRESSING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE
THROUGH PUBLIC PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIPS, RATHER THAN THE
PUNITIVE APPROACH OF AB 2239.
THIS BILL WOULD EXPOSE US TO
POTENTIAL COSTLY LITIGATION,
LITIGATION AND ENFORCEMENT BY
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. IT WILL
CHILL INVESTMENT AND INCREASE
THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS,
WHICH WILL BE ULTIMATELY PASSED
ON TO OUR CUSTOMERS AS WE
ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT THE GOAL OF
AFFORDABLE BROADBAND FOR ALL. WE
ARE COMMITTED TO THAT GOAL, WE
WOULD ASK THE LEGISLATURE TO
HELP US ACHIEVE IT THROUGH
REDUCING REGULATORY AND
PERMITTING BURDENS AND REFORMING
THE LIFELINE PROGRAM TO ALLOW
CUSTOMERS TO OPT TO USE THEIR
CREDIT FOR BROADBAND SERVICE.
HOWEVER TODAY THE CAL COMM
MEMBERS, CANNOT SUPPORT AB 2239
AND WE ASK FOR YOUR NO VOTE.
OKAY, WE'LL MOVE TO ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AND
SUPPORT. YOU MAY APPROACH YOUR
THE MIC WITH YOUR NAME,
AFFILIATION AND POSITION ONLY.
MARVIN PINEDA, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA EMERGING TECHNOLOGY
TECHNOLOGY FUND IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. TRACY ROSENBERG, ON
BEHALF OF MEDIA ALLIANCE, IN
SUPPORT. ADRIANA SANCHEZ OCHOA,
CHIEF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NEXT
GEN POLICY AND A MEMBER OF
CO-SPONSOR AND STRONG SUPPORT.
CRYSTAL MOJICA, MANAGER OF THE
DIGITAL EQUITY INITIATIVE AT THE
MICHELSON CENTER FOR PUBLIC
POLICY AND SUPPORT. TAMAR PENA,
UNITED PARENTS AND STUDENTS, AS
WELL AS DIGITAL EQUITY LÀ IN
SUPPORT. LINDSAY SKOLNICK HERE
WITH THE CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE FOR
DIGITAL EQUITY IN SUPPORT.
MADDIE RIBBLE WITH THE
CHILDREN'S PARTNERSHIP
CO-SPONSOR HERE IN SUPPORT.
ALYSSA MOHAMMADZADEH WITH THE
COMMUNITY CLINIC ASSOCIATION OF
LA COUNTY IN SUPPORT, SOPHIA
HASELTINE, CO-CHAIR OF THE
OAKLAND YOUTH COMMISSION IN
SUPPORT BRYCE HUNT WITH THE
OAKLAND YOUTH COMMISSION IN
SUPPORT SOPHIA SANDOVAL FROM
COMMUNITIES AND SCHOOLS OF LOS
ANGELES IN FULL SUPPORT. GEORGE
RIVERA WITH THE HEALING AND
JUSTICE CENTER AND DIGITAL
EQUITY LA COALITION IN SUPPORT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, ERIKA CERVANTES
WITH ALLIANCE FOR BETTER
COMMUNITY AND THE DIGITAL EQUITY
LA COALITION IN SUPPORT MIGUEL
ANGEL SEGURA, BÀN INSTITUTE FOR
QUALITY EDUCATION IN SUPPORT.
ULYSSES ADRIN, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR FOR TECH EXCHANGE IN
OAKLAND AND PART OF THE
CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE FOR DIGITAL
EQUITY IN SUPPORT. CLAUDIA
GARCIA, DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS
FROM TECH EXCHANGE IN SUPPORT.
JOJO LULA IS AN ASSOCIATE AT THE
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
IN SUPPORT. AMY CORTINA WITH
UNITE L.A. IN SUPPORT KEVIN
MILLER, BOARD CHAIR OF FRESNO
COALITION FOR DIGITAL INCLUSION,
IN SUPPORT. OUR
MEMBERS BUILD, DEVELOP, OWN AND
OPERATE THE NATION'S WIRELESS
INFRASTRUCTURE. WE ADVOCATE ON
BEHALF OF RESPONSIBLE AND TIMELY
DEPLOYMENT. AND FOR THE REASONS
STATED BY CAL BROADBAND, WE MUST
OPPOSE. BEN GOLOMBEK WITH THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
IN OPPOSITION. OKAY, BRINGING IT
BACK TO COMMITTEE. DO WE HAVE
ANY QUESTIONS? YES. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER NGUYEN. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. THANK YOU TO THE AUTHOR
FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD. I
KNOW THAT SHE'S SUCH A HUGE
CHAMPION FOR COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT ARE
UNSERVED AND UNDERSERVED. SO I
UNDERSTAND WHY THIS BILL IS
BEING BROUGHT FORWARD. I DO HAVE
A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND IT
MIGHT BE FOR BOTH, BUT, I HEARD
THAT OPPOSITION SAYS THERE'S
ALREADY A POLICY IN PLACE AROUND
DISCRIMINATION. AND IF THERE WAS
DISCRIMINATION IN DEPLOYMENT OF
ANY OF THESE PROGRAMS. SO I WAS
WONDERING IF YOU KNOW ABOUT THAT
POLICY OR IF THERE ARE ANY
QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT
WHAT'S ALREADY IN PLACE. AND
THEN I THINK THEY HAVE SOME
CHARTS HERE. AND THEY TALKED
ABOUT WITNESSES, TALKED ABOUT
HOW THERE ARE CERTAIN AREAS FIVE
BLOCKS AWAY WHERE THERE'S
DISCREPANCIES OR WHATNOT. I WAS
WONDERING IF YOU CAN SPEAK ON
THAT. I ALSO KNOW THAT THERE ARE
ALREADY PROGRAMS IN PLACE FOR
LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES, LOW
INCOME FAMILIES AND WHATNOT. I'M
WONDERING IF MAYBE YOU CAN TALK
HOW THIS WOULD IMPACT THAT, OR
WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS, AND
THEN, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT I WORRY ABOUT ALSO
IS THAT SOME REMEMBER, WHEN CAN
WE MAYBE BECAUSE YOU'RE ASKING
ALL THE THINGS TOGETHER, UNLESS
YOU'RE ASKING LIKE ONE BIG
QUESTION, WE GO THROUGH THE
CHAIR AND THEN WE COULD ASK FOR
RESPONSE. SURE. FROM BOTH SIDES.
YEAH, I'LL STOP THERE. OKAY,
WELL, THANK YOU KNOW, WE COULD
WE COULD GO BACK TO MORE
QUESTIONS. THERE ARE ALWAYS TIME
FOR MORE QUESTIONS. I KNOW WE'LL
STOP SO THEY CAN BECAUSE THEN IT
MIGHT GENERATE EVEN MORE
QUESTIONS OR ANSWERS. THERE WE
GO. POTENTIALLY WELL ON THE
OVERALL KIND OF LIKE WHETHER
THERE ARE EXISTING POLICIES THAT
THIS WOULD FALL UNDER, I JUST, I
WOULD POINT YOU TO A HISTORY IN
THE UNITED STATES AND
PARTICULARLY IN WHICH CALIFORNIA
HAS PARTICIPATED IN BEING VERY
CLEAR TO SET ESTABLISHED
GUIDELINES AROUND THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN DISPARATE IMPACT AND
DISPARATE, DISPARATE, INTENT AND
DIFFERENT DISPARATE IMPACT. FOR
THE MOST PART, THROUGH WHETHER
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT EDUCATION,
HEALTH CARE, EMPLOYMENT,
HOUSING, WE'VE ALWAYS HAD TO BE
VERY CLEAR ABOUT THE WAY IN
WHICH OUR ESSENTIAL UTILITIES
AND WHERE THAT HAVE
CONTINUALLY BEEN DISENFRANCHIZED
, INCLUDING INCLUDING
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR AND SO WE
ABSOLUTELY NEED TO BE CLEAR IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, NOT
JUST, RELYING ON THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, QUITE FRANKLY, IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THAT WE
NEED TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE
OPPOSED TO DISCRIMINATION WITHIN
THE CONTEXT OF SUCH A VITAL
RESOURCE LIKE BROADBAND. THE
OPPONENTS LIKE TO ALSO ANSWER
THE QUESTION. SO AND SORRY, I
WAS TRYING TO FOLLOW ALL OF YOUR
QUESTIONS. REGARDING, THOSE
STANDARDS HOUSEHOLDS AND TO
SEE WHAT IS EXACTLY HAPPENING,
WHETHER IT'S A TECHNOLOGY ISSUE
IN THEIR WI-FI, WHAT HAVE YOU,
SO ALWAYS THAT'S ALWAYS AN OPEN
DOOR POLICY AND, AND HOPE TO
CONTINUE THAT CONVERSATION. OKAY
I THINK THE OTHER QUESTION I ASK
ABOUT WAS JUST SOME OF THE
PROGRAMS, AND I THINK THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER DID TALK ABOUT
SOME OF THESE PROGRAMS. I'VE
NOT, AND I KNOW YOU SAID THAT
THERE WERE SOME STUDENTS AND
MAYBE SOME SENIOR COMMUNITIES
THAT WERE FROM MY DISTRICT. I
NOT HAD ANYBODY REACH OUT TO SAY
THAT THEY'VE HAD ISSUES. I KNOW
THAT WHEN THEY COME FROM
COMMUNITIES WHERE THEY CAN'T
AFFORD ACCESS TO THAT, WE WOULD
SIGN THEM UP TO PROGRAMS THAT
WOULD ALLOW THEM TO HAVE ACCESS
TO BROADBAND OR WHATNOT, YOU
KNOW, MY FEAR IS THAT WOULD THAT
IN ANY WAY IMPEDE IN SOME OF
THESE PROGRAMS THAT ARE ALREADY
AVAILABLE TO, TO THESE TO
THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU KNOW, I'M
JUST USING THAT AS AN EXAMPLE OF
WHAT I COULD SEE HAPPEN. AND I'M
NOT SURE IF YOU COULD TALK ABOUT
THAT OR IF YOU CAN TALK ABOUT
THAT, BUT THAT'S KIND OF HOW I,
I VIEW IT, I, YOU KNOW, AND
AGAIN, LIKE, I LOVE THAT YOU'RE
SUCH A CHAMPION FOR LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES AND WHATNOT. AND
THAT'S WHAT WE BOTH DID FOR
DECADES. AND SO MY FEAR IS THAT
THIS WOULD TAKE AWAY FROM SOME
OF THE THINGS THAT IN MY
DISTRICT, THAT WE, WE REALLY
UTILIZE AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO
AND THAT I WAS ABLE TO SIGN UP A
LOT OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND
FAMILIES FOR THE FEAR IS THAT
SOME OF THAT GOES AWAY, OR THE
FEAR IS THAT IT'S, NOT AS GREAT
AS IT IS NOW FROM WHAT MY
DISTRICTS ARE USED TO, YOU KNOW,
ENJOYING. SO WOULD THE AUTHOR OR
THE PROPONENTS LIKE TO ANSWER
THAT QUESTION? YEAH. UNDERSTOOD,
I WOULD FIRST SAY THAT, JUST TO
KIND OF ADDRESS THE ASSERTION
THAT THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ANY
VIOLATIONS REPORTED. MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE
ISN'T AN ADEQUATE COMPLAINT
MECHANISM FOR THOSE VIOLATIONS
TO BE REPORTED. SO, YOU KNOW, IF
YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO COMPLAIN,
YOU'RE NOT REALLY ALLOWED TO BE
ABLE TO OR HAVE A VEHICLE TO BE
ABLE TO DO THAT. IT'S LIKELY
THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE
ANY ISSUES WITH ENFORCEMENT ONE
MORE TIME. SORRY THERE ISN'T. I
THOUGHT THAT THERE IS A
COMPLAINT, THERE IS A MECHANISM
TO COMPLAIN, AND IT'S WITHIN THE
CPUC AND THE CPUC REVIEWS. BASED
ON THE VIDEO SERVICES SIDE, OUR
FRANCHISE, AND ANY ACCUSATION OF
IF THE CPUC WE'RE NOT ON THE
VIDEO SERVICES SIDE, THOUGH OF
THE SHOP. WE ARE ON THE
BROADBAND SIDE OF THE SHOP
RIGHT. IT'S THE SAME
INFRASTRUCTURE. OKAY. I WOULD
LIKE THE AUTHOR TO ANSWER THIS
QUESTION, IF THAT'S OKAY. YEAH.
SO I'LL JUST CONTINUE WITH MY,
THE SCENARIO THAT YOU OFFERED,
WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY FIRST THAT,
THE FACT THAT WE ARE PROVIDED BY
PRIVATE ACTORS, DESPITE COUNTS,
IT ESSENTIALLY BELIES THE IDEA
THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS
WITHIN OUR CONTROL TO BE ABLE TO
CONTINUE TO, HOLD A SACRED
RIGHT, THE IDEA OF ENSURING THAT
WE HAVE A VERY CLEAR DEFINITION
OF WHAT DIGITAL DISCRIMINATION
MEANS IS THAT WE ARE DECLARING
THAT IT IS OUR RIGHT TO HAVE TO
BE DIGITALLY CONNECTED, AND IT
IS THE PUBLIC'S RESPONSIBILITY
TO ENSURE THAT IN THE SHARING OF
THOSE, THOSE, SERVICES, THAT
PEOPLE ARE NOT DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST BASED ON THE CATEGORIES
THAT WE KNOW, ARE COVERED WITHIN
THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. SO
I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT,
PROGRAMS COMING TO EXISTENCE OR
NOT. I'M I'M ALWAYS CONCERNED
ABOUT THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT
WITHIN OUR POWER TO BE ABLE TO
CONTROL THAT. WHAT IS WITHIN OUR
POWER AS A STATE LEGISLATURE IS
ESSENTIALLY TO BE VERY CLEAR
ABOUT WHEN, THERE IS A
DIFFERENTIAL IN TERMS OF THE
KINDS OF SERVICES THAT ARE
AVAILABLE IN TERMS OF
ACCESSIBILITY AND, THE QUALITY
OF THE SERVICE THAT'S BEING
PROVIDED, SECONDARILY, WE NEED
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO BE CLEAR THAT,
THIS LEGISLATION DOES NOT CREATE
A SITUATION. THIS LEGISLATION
DICTATES THAT IF THE POLICY OR
PRACTICE IS NOT JUSTIFIED BY
GENUINE ISSUES OF TECHNICAL OR
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY, THAT NEEDS
TO ESSENTIALLY HAVE A BURDEN OF
PROOF ON THE ISP PROVIDERS TO
DEMONSTRATE, THAT, THAT IT IS
NOT, DIGITALLY DISCRIMINATORY,
THAT IT'S NOT DISCRIMINATORY. SO
ESSENTIALLY, IF WE HAVE THESE
EXEMPTIONS AROUND FOR ISP
PROVIDERS, IT'S TECHNICALLY
INFEASIBLE OR IT'S ECONOMICALLY
INFEASIBLE, AL TO BE ABLE TO
PROVIDE THE SERVICE, THEN THIS,
THIS, RULING OF DISCRIMINATION
WOULD NOT APPLY. OKAY. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER DAVIES THROUGH
THE CHAIR. IF I CAN GO TO
OPPOSITION, I'VE HEARD THE WORD
SAFE HARBOR PROVISIONS. CAN YOU
EXPLAIN THAT TO ME? SURE. SO,
THIS BILL DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY
OF THE PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS
THAT MOST ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
LAWS INCLUDE, INCLUDING UNRAR
AND DPA. AND THAT MEANS A SAFE
HARBOR FOR INSTANCES WHERE
THINGS ARE NOT, WHERE BUSINESS
DECISIONS NEED TO BE MADE THAT
ARE NONDISCRIMINATORY. RIGHT.
AND THEN, IT ALSO DOES NOT
INCLUDE THE NATURAL DEFENSES
THAT WE ARE THAT, ARE NORMALLY
INCLUDED IN THE
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS. AND I
KNOW WE HAVE BEEN TALKING WITH
THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE REGARDING
SOME KIND OF LANGUAGE, AND WE
ARE HOPEFUL THAT AFTER THIS, WE
KNOW THIS BILL WAS GOING TO BE
AMENDED. WE JUST GOT THE
LANGUAGE. WE'RE HOPING TO
CONTINUE THOSE CONVERSATIONS
REGARDING THOSE IMPORTANT
PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS, INCLUDING
SAFE HARBORS, INCLUDING DEFENSES
AND PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
REGARDING THE COMPLAINT PROCESS.
SO THOSE ARE THOSE ARE
PROCEDURES THAT YOU WOULD LIKE
TO SEE IN THERE. YES. OKAY. AND
FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO SAY
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS BILL
UP, I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THE
INTENT. I THINK WE'VE SOLVED,
YOU KNOW, SO MUCH OF THIS DURING
COVID AND WHY IT WAS SO
IMPORTANT, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT
CAME TO OUR KIDS AND EDUCATION.
AND I'M SO GLAD THAT YOU GUYS
HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THAT.
ARE THERE ANY OF THESE? I GUESS,
EXEMPTIONS OR PROVISIONS THAT
YOU GUYS, THAT YOU TWO THINK YOU
WOULD BE ABLE TO HELP OUT TO ME,
A PERFECT YOU KNOW, WE HAVE GOOD
BILLS, BUT AS LEGISLATORS, WE
LIKE THE PERFECT BILL WHERE
THERE ISN'T ANY OPPOSITION,
WHERE WE KNOW PEOPLE COME
TOGETHER FOR THE FOR THE GREATER
GOOD, WHICH WOULD BE, YOU KNOW,
CONNECTIVITY AND FOR THE GOOD OF
, YOU KNOW, THOSE HAVING THE
COMMUNICATION, ARE ARE THERE ANY
OF THESE THAT THEY'RE TALKING
ABOUT THAT YOU THINK YOU MIGHT
BE WORKING AFTER WE LEAVE, AFTER
WE LEAVE THIS ROOM, CERTAINLY
AFTER WE LEAVE THIS ROOM, I WILL
SAY THAT, MY STAFF HAS MET WITH
THE OPPOSITION SEVERAL ON
SEVERAL DIFFERENT OCCASIONS.
WE'VE REQUESTED LANGUAGE ON WHAT
A COMPROMISE WOULD LOOK LIKE ON
AT LEAST THREE DIFFERENT
OCCASIONS, AND PROVIDED THE
OPPOSITION WITH THE AUTHOR
AMENDMENTS BEFORE THEY WENT INTO
PRINT, FURTHERMORE, WHILE I
APPRECIATE THE INTRODUCTION OF
THE NOTION OF SAFE HARBOR, WHICH
WE ARE AS YOU KNOW, MISS NGUYEN
MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE. NØ THAT
WE WORK HARD ON OUR BILLS TO
MAKE SURE THAT THEY COME INTO A
PLACE WHERE THEY ARE GOOD POLICY
AND WE ARE HAPPY TO CONTINUE TO,
ENTERTAIN THOSE CONVERSATIONS
AND BE IN CONVERSATION WITH THE
OPPOSITION AROUND THAT LANGUAGE,
BOTH AROUND THAT AND ANY KIND OF
PROCEDURAL LANGUAGE, BUT I WOULD
CERTAINLY ASK THAT OUR OFFICE
SEES THAT LANGUAGE FIRST, WHICH
HAS NOT BEEN THE CASE, THAT ONE
SECOND, IF I CAN JUST INTERJECT,
I JUST WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT
WE DID NOT GET ANY AMENDMENTS
FROM THE OPPOSITION FOR SAFE
HARBOR WHEN IT CAME TO THIS
COMMITTEE, I'LL SAY SOMETHING IN
MY CLOSING AROUND ENFORCEMENT.
AND SO I THINK THERE IS SOME
WORK TO DO THERE. YOU WANT TO
YOU WANT YOU WOULD WANT A
PROCESS TO BE CLEAR WHERE PEOPLE
KNOW WHERE THEY'RE CROSSING THE
LINE. AND I, I MEAN,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER BONTA IS SO
KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THIS AND SO
THOUGHTFUL ABOUT THIS THAT I
TRUST THOSE CONVERSATIONS WILL
CONTINUE ON. YEAH. NO. AND I
APPRECIATE THAT, RIGHT NOW, WHAT
I'M GOING TO DO IS I'M GOING TO
HOLD OFF ON THIS BILL, TO
SUPPORT IT BECAUSE I KNOW THAT
YOU GUYS CAN COME TOGETHER. AND
AGAIN, I MAY BE LOOKING FOR THE
PERFECT BILL, BUT I KNOW THAT
I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN COME
TOGETHER BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THERE
IS ECONOMIC POINT WHERE IF, YOU
KNOW, IF IT'S NOT FEASIBLE,
WHICH I APPRECIATE THAT, THAT IT
JUST CAN'T BE DONE. YOU'RE NOT
TRYING TO EXPECT SOMETHING
THAT'S NOT OBTAINABLE. AND I
THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE
WE DON'T WANT TO WATCH THE
SMALL, SMALL COMPANIES GO IN
THERE. BUT I THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR THIS. I DO UNDERSTAND THE
IMPORTANCE OF IT, AND I HOPE
THAT I CAN GET TO THE POINT TO
SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU. AND
QUESTIONS. HOLD ON. OH, NOT SO
MUCH A QUESTION. I'D LIKE TO
MOVE THE BILL. I THINK THAT THE
AUTHOR HAS WORKED VERY HARD WITH
THE COMMITTEE TO ADDRESS SOME OF
THE ISSUES THAT WERE THRESHOLD
IN TERMS OF THIS COMMITTEE'S
JURISDICTION, I KNOW THAT I
BELIEVE IT GOES TO JUDICIARY
AFTERWARDS. AND SO THERE'S OTHER
ELEMENTS OR OTHER BARS TO TRY TO
ADDRESS. AND GET OVER. BUT IN
TERMS OF WHERE WE ARE IN THE
AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN
ACCEPTED, IN THE CONVERSATIONS
THAT WILL CONTINUE, I'M HAPPY TO
MOVE THE BILL. MOTION BY HOLDEN.
DO I HAVE A SECOND, SECOND,
SECOND BY RIVAS. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
RODRIGUEZ YES. THANK YOU. I JUST
THINK SOME OF MY QUESTIONS HAVE
ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED. BUT I
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD.
OBVIOUSLY, IT'S A VERY COMPLEX
ISSUE, A LOT OF DIFFERENT MOVING
PARTS. HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET A
BETTER PLACE WITH OPPOSITION,
CONTINUE TO WORK TOGETHER TO
ADDRESS THESE ISSUES THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT REGARDING THE
BILLING ISSUES. AND OBVIOUSLY
THERE ARE STILL A LACK OF ACCESS
AND SOME OF OUR COMMUNITIES,
RIGHT. HOW DO WE GET THERE THE
SOONER RATHER THAN LATER? BUT I
THINK THIS IS SOMETHING WE NEED
TO CONTINUE WORKING ON TO GET IN
A BETTER PLACE. AND ONCE AGAIN,
I ENCOURAGE YOU TO WORK BOTH
SIDES TOGETHER AND HOPEFULLY, I
CAN FIND SOME BETTER PLACE FOR
ALL SUPPORT. I'LL SUPPORT IT NOW
AS A COURTESY TO CONTINUE THAT
PROCESS, BUT RESERVE MY RIGHT TO
SEE WHAT HAPPENS IF IT COMES ON
THE FLOOR, THAT HOPEFULLY GETS
IN A BETTER PLACE. SO THANK YOU
BOTH. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
OKAY. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
MAIENSCHEIN THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. AND I'VE REVIEWED THE,
THE MATERIALS ON THIS. I
APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING IT. I
KNOW IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S
IMPORTANT TO YOU, I'M. I ALSO
WOULD REFLECT WHAT MY COLLEAGUE
HAD SAID TO YOU. I HOPE YOU'LL
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THOSE THAT
ARE IN OPPOSITION. I DO THINK
THERE'S SOME ISSUES THERE, I'LL
BE HAPPY TO SIT DOWN WITH YOU,
TOO, AND KIND OF REFLECT WHAT
I'VE BEEN HEARING FROM FOLKS
KIND OF IN MY NECK OF THE WOODS
AND IN SAN DIEGO. I DO WANT TO
ALLOW YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO
CONTINUE WORKING ON IT. SO IF
NECESSARY, YOU KNOW, TO HELP YOU
MOVE THAT ALONG THE PROCESS. I'D
BE WILLING TO DO THAT. BUT SAME
THING. I'D RESERVE MY RIGHT DOWN
THE ROAD, IF SOME OF THESE
ISSUES CONTINUE TO BE A PROBLEM,
TO, TO NOT SUPPORT THE BILL, BUT
I KNOW YOU DO, WORK WITH OTHER
PEOPLE. AND SO FOR THAT REASON,
TO CONTINUE TO MOVE, WHAT'S AN
IMPORTANT DISCUSSION, DOWN THE
ROAD, I'LL DO THAT. BUT I DO
URGE YOU TO CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH THE OPPOSITION ON THIS.
THANK YOU. ANOTHER LIVELY CNC
HEARING. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
OKAY. WITH THAT, ASSEMBLYMEMBER
BONTA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE
CHAIR? WHO WOULD HAVE THUNK THAT
YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN THE CENTER
OF SO MUCH, YOU KNOW, INTRIGUE,
YOU KNOW, THIS ISSUE IS, NOT
ONLY IMPORTANT TO ME AND MY
DISTRICT, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO
EVERY SINGLE CALIFORNIAN WE IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND A
STAND UP FOR DEMOCRACY. AND WE
STAND UP TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE
SHUNNING ANY DISCRIMINATORY
ACTION. WE ALREADY HAVE LAWS ON
THE BOOKS TO BE ABLE TO VERY
CLEARLY SAY THAT WE WON'T ALLOW
FOR DISPARATE IMPACT AND
DISCRIMINATION IN THE AREAS OF
EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION, HEALTH
CARE, WHAT WE DON'T HAVE RIGHT
NOW IS A FIRM STANCE FROM THIS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR AROUND
ENSURING THAT THERE IS NO
DISCRIMINATION OF ACCESS AS IT
RELATES TO AN ESSENTIAL SERVICE
OF BROADBAND AND CONNECTIVITY.
MY OFFICE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH THE OPPOSITION ON THIS
BILL. AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE
ALL SERVE, TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE
MOVING FORWARD WITH LEGISLATION
THAT WILL ENSURE THAT EVERY
CALIFORNIAN IS PROVIDED THE NEED
THAT THEY HAVE. WE WANT TO BE
ABLE TO ENSURE THAT OUR ISP
PROVIDERS HAVE, THE, THE COMFORT
THAT THEY NEED IN ORDER TO BE
ABLE TO DO THEIR BUSINESS. BUT
WE ALSO NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT
EVERY CALIFORNIAN HAS THE BASIC
RIGHT TO BROADBAND, WE WILL
CONTINUE TO WORK THIS BILL. YOU
HAVE MY COMMITMENT AROUND THAT.
WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR AYE VOTE. OKAY. WE
HAVE A MOTION BY HOLDEN. SECOND
BY RIVAS. I WANT TO THANK
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BONTA FOR
WORKING WITH ME AND MY COMMITTEE
STAFF. SO CONSTRUCTIVELY ON THIS
BILL, AND GETTING TO THE PLACE
WHERE WE ARE NOW, I SUPPORT WHAT
YOU'RE DOING TO ADDRESS THE
DIGITAL DISCRIMINATION, AND IT
WILL SUPPLEMENT THE WORK WE'RE
DOING IN OTHER AREAS, INCLUDING
INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING AND
DIGITAL EQUITY WORK, REGARDLESS
OF WHAT'S HAPPENING AT THE LEVEL
OF THE FCC, CALIFORNIA HAS BEEN
A LEADER IN THE BROADBAND SPACE.
AND I THINK YOUR BILL CONTINUES
THAT TRADITION, MOVING FORWARD,
I DO THINK THERE'S ROOM FOR
THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT
ENFORCEMENT LOOKS LIKE, AND
WE'LL CONTINUE TO LOOK LIKE IN
CALIFORNIA, BUT THEN NONETHELESS
, YOU'VE PROVEN YOUR COMMITMENT
TIME AND TIME AGAIN WITH WORKING
WITH PEOPLE ON THIS BILL. AS I
WAS MENTIONING EARLIER, I THINK
THERE NEEDS TO BE A BRIGHT LINE
FOR EVERY COMPANY ABOUT WHEN
THEY'RE CROSSING IT. AND IN MY
DISTRICT CURRENTLY, I DON'T SEE
A LOT OF DIGITAL DISCRIMINATION,
BUT I HAVE THE DISTRICT THAT
PROBABLY DOESN'T SEE THAT AND MY
OLD DISTRICT, WHICH INCLUDES
PART OF ASSEMBLYMEMBER DAVIES
DISTRICT, OCEANSIDE AND VISTA,
WE SOUGHT MORE AND MORE. THERE
WEREN'T PICTURES OF KIDS AT TACO
BELL OR MCDONALD'S IN ENCINITAS
AND CARLSBAD. THEY WERE IN
OCEANSIDE AND VISTA. AND THE
ISSUE OF THE I. I'M TOO OLD TO
READ ANY OF THIS POSTERS YOU
BROUGHT. I TRIED REALLY HARD IF
YOU SAW ME SQUINTING, BUT I
WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT DATA FOR
OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE BECAUSE
HIGHER COSTS WITH LOWER SPEEDS
IS UNACCEPTABLE. AND I DON'T
THINK ANY OF US KNOWS THAT'S NOT
SNAP. LET'S ALL HOLD IT TO THE
END. YOU KNOW, ANYWAYS, HIGHER
COSTS, HIGHER COSTS AND LOWER
SPEEDS ARE UNACCEPTABLE. AND I
DON'T THINK ANY OF OUR GOOD
ACTORS INTEND THAT. AND SO I
REALLY HOPE YOU DO DO THE TOURS
WITH CAL BROADBAND AND OUR ISPS
TO SO THAT THEY CAN FIX THE
PROBLEM, BECAUSE I THINK IF IT
EXISTED, IT'S A HISTORIC PRIVATE
MARKET EXPANSION THAT EXISTED
AND INSIDIOUS. WE HAVE MULTIPLE
ISPS THAT SERVE MY HOUSE. THERE
AREN'T NOT MULTIPLE ISPS THAT
SERVE EVERY PART, ESPECIALLY IN
LOW INCOME AREAS. SO ANYWAYS, I
GONE OFF ON WHY I WAS REALLY
HAPPY TO WORK WITH YOU ON THIS
BILL. SO I'VE OBVIOUSLY I'M
SUPPORTING THE BILL. WE HAVE A
MOTION. WE HAVE A SECOND. THE
MOTION ON AB 2239 BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER BONTA IS Dð PASS AS
AMENDED AND RE REFER TO THE
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY WHO
THEY'RE PROBABLY THE BETTER
PEOPLE TO HANDLE THE ENFORCEMENT
PART THAN ME. YOU KNOW, NOT A
LAWYER WITH THE SECRETARY.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. BURNER I
BURNER I PATTERSON. NO.
PATTERSON. NO BONTA I BONTA I
DAVE REYES. DAVIES. NO. GARCIA
GARCIA I HOLDEN HOLDEN I HOOVER.
HOOVER NO. MOONSHINE. MOONSHINE
I NGUYEN I'M GOING TO SAVE MY
VOTE FOR THE FINAL PRODUCT ON
THE FLOOR. SO I'M NOT GOING TO
VOTE ON IT TODAY. WHEN NOT
VOTING. THREE OF US THREE OF US
I RODRIGUEZ RODRIGUEZ I
.
OKAY. THAT BILLS OUT SEVEN EYES
ONE NOT VOTING THREE NO'S. IS
THAT CORRECT? YES. OKAY THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, MISS BOND. AND
THANK YOU TO EVERYONE IN THE
ROOM. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO
APPLAUSE OR SNAP. NOW THIS IS
THE TIME. THERE YOU GO. OKAY,
WE'RE GONNA MOVE IT BACK TO THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. DO WE HAVE A
MOTION? SECOND MOVED BY NGUYEN.
SECOND BY RODRIGUEZ. OKAY, WE
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. WILL
THE SECRETARY PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR? WE
HAVE AB 2639, JIM PATTERSON,
ITEM FIVE, AB 2708, JIM
PATTERSON AND ITEM SIX AB 2905
LOW FOR THE CONSENT CALENDAR AB
2369 DO PASS OR REFER TO
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS AB
20 708 JIM PATTERSON DO PASS AND
REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS AND AB 20 905 LOW
DO PASS, AS AMENDED AND RE REFER
TO THE COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND
CONSUMER PROTECTION. BURNER A
BURNER I PATTERSON. PATTERSON I
BONTA BONTA I DAVIS DAVIES I
GARCIA GARCIA I HOLDEN HOLDEN I
HOOVER HOOVER I MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN I NGUYEN NGUYEN I
THREE OF US THREE OF US I
RODRIGUEZ RODRIGUEZ I. OKAY THAT
CAN CONSENT CARRIED CALENDARS
OUT UNANIMOUSLY. AND NOW WE'RE
GOING TO LIFT THE CALL ON AB.
WHICH ONE IS IT AB 2765. WILL
THE SECRETARY PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL? GARCIA. GARCIA AYE.
HOOVER. HOOVER. AYE. MENON HÌNH.
MAIENSCHEIN. AYE. THREE OF US.
THREE OF US. AYE. AB 2765 IS OUT
11 TO 0. OKAY THAT'S IT. WHERE'S
MY. WITH THAT, THE COMMITTEE IS
ADJOURNED